South Carolina Network of Children's Advocacy Centers
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 861158952
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2016
- Location
- Columbia, SC, USA
- Phone
- 8035767250
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Management & Technical Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,193,022
- Expenses
- $3,113,434
- Assets
- $1,457,186
- Liabilities
- $943,064
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- THOMAS KNAPP (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- THOMAS KNAPP (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $218,819 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Empowering South Carolina communities and children's advocacy centers to deliver a best practice response to child abuse
What it reported doing in 2025
Provided funding to member cac's and provided necessary infrastructure to support organizational capacity and direct services for cac's. During 2025 worked with cacs, multidisciplinary teams, and state agencies, to educate legislators, and others to increase cac state funding. Updated the scncac development plan, provided statewide protocol traning, maintained a department of social services database integration, and continued work on 3-year strategic plan to furhter build and improve the coordinated statewide response to child abuse. 17 primary & 14 satelite cac's served 46 counties in South Carolina. Over 14,000 children were helped by cac services & over 60,000 prevention & case management services were provided in 2025.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 96
- Transparency & Controls: 61
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 27
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.4%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 97.8%; rating input score 98
- Fundraising efficiency: $2,571.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 27% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 95.4% of revenue deployed · 97.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.